I’ve been thinking about this very thing some more recently.

It has been interesting to say the least to see the extent to which people are willing to believe the AA captains story over that of the Treasury agent. Given the dearth of information originally available I would have guessed it would be closer to 50/50. I was unwilling to make up my own mind early on until more information came out as I could easily imagine either scenario. Thus I refrained from posting until I felt that a reasonable assumption could be reached culled from facts and impartial reports.

When one rationally and impartially looks at the timeline, AA’s statements and contentions fall by the wayside. Interestingly enough it was the captain’s own statement that swayed me to the Treasury agent’s side.

The fact is that the captain knew before he stepped on the plane that an armed LEO agent was on board and both had the agent’s paperwork and was satisfied that it was correct and proper as he climbed into the cockpit and began preparing the aircraft for departure. This is a simple, undisputable fact. When the captain was unaware of or unconcerned with the agent’s race or ethnicity he was ready to put the plane in the air.

It wasn’t until the FA became irrationally frightened (I’ve actually seen someone killed by a city bus but I don’t live in fear of the sight of all city buses) by the sight of an Arab looking passenger on her plane that she had him pulled for more screening, illegally searched his personal belongings, and brought her fears to the attention of the captain.

The agent was pulled of the plane for "additional screening" by AA personnel as confirmed by both an AA statement and the passenger sitting next to the agent. Again, this is an undisputable fact (unless AA and the passenger are lying).

So, here we are. Fact: It wasn’t until the FA brought her fears of an Arab on her plane that the captain left the cockpit to check the agent and his paperwork over. IIRC, the agent’s credentials and identity were confirmed by, at the very least, the Baltimore PD and the Maryland State police. I believe that Rssrsvp is correct that this started as a situation where the captain was backing up the FA for appearances sake and ultimately denied boarding when the agent began to plead his case, as an expression of the captains territorial prerogative, "Only I say who gets on my plane".

Opinion: I found it interesting that the AA captain claims that the agent "threatened to bring the powers of the White House down on [him]" While the agent claims he said, "these credentials are good enough to get me into the White House everyday". Hmm. While there is no impartial third party substantiation for either side, if I were in Vegas now I know which version I would bet on. Again, just my opinion.

So back to Rssrsvp’s question. Why do people twist and ignore facts in an effort to try and support the AA captains version?

Within the academy over the years there have been many studies concerning various professions and specializations that have explored the degree to which people are willing to "go along" with various types of "authority" figures. To lazy to worry about links but I am sure most here recall the study where "professional" and "authoritative" looking lab assistants instructed one participant to give a shock to another participant. It was determined that many people were willing to continue upping the voltage while in full knowledge/belief that they were causing the other person physical pain. I remember that one of the first books I read as an undergrad, Arendt’s, "Eichmann in Jerusalem" dealt more or less with this very subject.

IIRC (no interest in laboring to find links or dig out old undergrad psych texts as this is all anecdotal anyway) additional research building on this and other studies have found a discernable and observable correlation between ones general cultural, sociological, and ideological outlook and disposition and their willingness to acquiesce to an "authority" figure. Research has shown that someone with a generally more conservative or neutral outlook (this is not about political party affiliation) was more willing to obey/believe someone presented to them as an authority figure. Additionally, the very young and the very old were substantially more susceptible to an authority figure.

These and other similar findings are of course not absolute nor can they be simplistically construed as saying, for example, that Democrats lead and Republicans follow, all conservatives are Fascists, all liberal are Hedonists etc. Again IIRC, people with both extreme right and left ideological beliefs were found in equal numbers willing to obeying or rebel. Very interesting.

Does this definitively answer the question? I don’t know but I do believe that there is some substance to a hypothesis that, on this board (if not in general) those with a more conservative belief system are more likely to believe AA’s side (pilot authority figure, big corporation vs. the government) while those with a more liberal outlook may be more likely to side with the agent (someone who works for the government). As always, and as in life, nothing is absolute. But it is interesting.




[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 01-09-2002).]